title: Automatism and driving offences.
abstract: Automatism is a rarely used defence, but it is particularly used for driving offences because many are strict liability offences. Medical evidence is almost always crucial to argue the defence, and it is important to understand the bars that limit the use of automatism so that the important medical issues can be identified. The issue of prior fault is an important public safeguard to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to prevent accidents. The total loss of control definition is more problematic, especially with disorders of more gradual onset like hypoglycaemic episodes. In these cases the alternative of 'effective loss of control' would be fairer. This article explores several cases, how the criteria were applied to each, and the types of medical assessment required.
authors.affiliation: Centre of Law, Ethics and Society, Keele University, Keele ST5 5BG, UK. Electronic address: j.rumbold@keele.ac.uk.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Rumbold
mesh_terms: D000063:Accidents, Traffic / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001332:Automatism / Q000150:complications*; D001334:Automobile Driving / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004827:Epilepsy / Q000150:complications; D006801:Humans; D007003:Hypoglycemia / Q000150:complications; D007298:Insanity Defense; D009103:Multiple Sclerosis / Q000150:complications; D012891:Sleep Apnea Syndromes / Q000150:complications; D013009:Somnambulism / Q000150:complications
keywords: Automatism; Driving offences; Hypoglycaemia; Sleep apnoea